EU laws to “prohibit” European “companies from respecting US sanctions,” German media report

The European Union is considering laws to protect European companies trading with Iran in the wake of new U.S. sanctions.

The EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced plans to enact a set of laws that “seek to prevent European companies from complying with any sanctions the US may reintroduce against Iran,” Germany’s state-run broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported on Friday.

EU Commission President Juncker wants to put in place a so-called ‘blocking statute’ that will shield European companies violating sanctions from prosecution by the U.S. authorities.

The legal framework, originally developed in 1996 to circumvent U.S. sanctions against Cuba and Libya, will now be enacted to protect European businesses operating in Iran. The framework will effectively “prohibit” European “companies from respecting US sanctions,” Deutsche Welle confirmed.

The EU law may come into effect within the next two months, the TV network Euronewsreported.

Following President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2016 Iran nuclear deal earlier this month, European countries like France and Germany have been scrambling to save their business interests in Iran. “[I]f it’s America first, and they put their economic interest before others, then they have to expect Europe to define their own interests and fight for them,” German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier said on Friday.

German and French companies are big beneficiaries of the Iran deal. Carmakers Daimler and Peugeot have set up manufacturing plants in the country. Siemens bagged a huge contract to upgrade Iran’s railway network. Franco-German aircraft maker Airbus signed a $27 billion deal to supply airliners to Tehran.

Following President Trump’s decision, the U.S. advised German companies to stop trading with Iran. “US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately,” Ambassador Richard Grenell, the U.S. envoy to Germany, said.

German broadcaster DeutscheWellereported EU Commission President Juncker’s plans to protect European companies violating U.S. sanctions on Iran:

European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced Thursday that the bloc plans to reactivate a law that would seek to prevent European companies from complying with any sanctions the US may reintroduce against Iran.

Juncker’s announcement came during the second day of an EU meeting in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which has already been marked by sharp criticism from European leaders of American President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. […]

In Thursday’s announcement, Juncker said: “As the European Commission we have the duty to protect European companies. We now need to act, and this is why we are launching the process to activate the ‘blocking statute’ from 1996.”

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel traveled to Russia in an attempt to enlist President Vladimir Putin’s support for her bid to save the troubled Iran deal. Earlier this month, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was in Moscow to discuss the fallout of the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Both Russia and Germany have huge business interests in Iran. Germany wants to play a bigger role in Iran’s oil and manufacturing sectors, while Russia is a major weapons suppliers to the Mullah regime.

Brussels’ actions to protect French and German business interests once again reveals the true nature of the EU. The union was not forged to build a commonwealth of European nation states prospering side-by-side, it was devised as a tool to further German and French interests in the region and on the world stage. With French President Emmanuel Macron still learning the ropes and eager to please German Chancellor Merkel, Berlin is calling the shots in Brussels. Merkel-led Germany effectively dictates continental Europe’s migrant, fiscal, and foreign policy.

In the short term, EU legal statutes could protect German, French, or other European companies from making lucrative deals with Tehran. A nuclear-armed and expansionist Iran, however, will pose a greater threat to European countries than it will to the United States. With Hezbollah running Lebanon and Assad ruling most parts of Syria, Iran is projecting military power from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.

A Merkel-Putin alliance to defy President Trump on Iran or Juncker’s sanction-busting law will only fuel Islamic Republic’s geopolitical ambitions.

Watch: It’s ‘possible’ US would sanction European countries, says National Security Adviser John Bolton

Comments

They’re knee deep in Obama’s wars, the cover-up of the refugee crises (e.g. trail of tears), and Obama’s “deal”. If it was another Ukraine, they would all be under investigation for collusion with Iran and third-party terrorists.

airbus contains US Tech & we simply sue them in court to remove it – the reason airbus has the tech is to take advantage of OUR laws –
ByBy Airbus and the others & don’t let the door hit you in the Obama.
LOL
#MAGA
not tired of winning.

Three year olds throw much better temper tantrums. The simple truth is that the European’s cannot not win a trade war with the United States, China, Saudi Arabia or even the People Republic of California.

These indolent poltroons would be speaking German now if it were not for U.S. might. A century ago their generals sacrificed millions until Pershing came along and out flanked the enemy. Despite our best efforts most of Europe may soon be speaking Arabic. Their threats are pure juvenilia.

practicalconservative: The simple truth is that the European’s cannot not win a trade war with the United States, China, Saudi Arabia or even the People Republic of California.

As a practical matter, no one wins a trade war. The U.S. took unilateral action after having made a joint agreement. The E.U. economy is comparable in size to the U.S. economy, so it’s not a case where the U.S. can easily win through bullying.

What many people miss is the size of the US consumer market. The US constitutes 27% of the GLOBAL consumer market. If the US sanctions EU companies which continue to trade with Iran, thus eliminating their products from the US consumer market, this does not hurt the US consumer as much as it does the foreign manufacturer or seller. US based companies will simply pick-up the US market share of foreign manufacturers.

The best thing about this is that AirBus, Daimler and Siemens and other countries are free to choose between servicing the Iranian market or the US market. And, it does not matter if the EU says that that EU based companies can not refuse to deal with Iran, as far as US sanctions go. Those sanctions will still stand. All it hurts is the EU based companies. So, what will these companies do? We’ll see.

The E.U. is also a huge consumer market, the largest U.S. export market.

Mac45: If the US sanctions EU companies which continue to trade with Iran, thus eliminating their products from the US consumer market, this does not hurt the US consumer as much as it does the foreign manufacturer or seller.

Of course it hurts the consumer. A reduction in competition will cause a rise in prices. And because it takes time for markets to respond, there will be a spike in prices as supplies dwindle.

You miss the point. You are getting all caught up in the act of international trade and are ignoring the fact that trade is only one part of economic interaction. Trade is geared to supplying markets and these markets are made up of consumers. The consumer market, in the US, is shared between US producers and foreign producers. For this reason, US producers have to seek markets outside the US to offset the market share that foreign producers service within the US. But, what happens if foreign usurpation of portions of the US market are curtailed? Does that group of consumers disappear? No, they still exist and require servicing. Who is most likely to service that market share? US producers. China understands this, which is why they are developing domestic production to service domestic markets.

The second thing that you do is to look only at the price of consumer goods and ignore other economic factors which impact consumers. There are such things are employment, production costs of US producers, taxation, etc. In order to support a consumer market, people have to have money. If more people are working and earning that money, rather than obtaining it from government handouts, this reduces the tax burden on those people currently working. This increases spendable funds. Expansion of production activities in the US creates an expansion of businesses which support the core manufacturing base, which is the basis of a consumer economy.

Finally, the biggest difference in the US and EU markets is government control of those markets. The EU is a voluntary conglomeration of independent nations. These nations have great latitude in how they conduct their affairs and can even leave the EU at will. The US is a single country where the member states are not independent and where the federal government controls trade and other aspects of the economy. The US essentially conducts individual trade relations with individual members of the EU. And this is a huge difference.

Even though the consumer base in the EU is the equal of that of the US, it is fragmented between a score of members who all have their own individual economic agendas. The EU would collapse before the US does, in any wide spread trade embargo.

Mac45: But, what happens if foreign usurpation of portions of the US market are curtailed? Does that group of consumers disappear? No, they still exist and require servicing. Who is most likely to service that market share? US producers.

The advantage of trade is to maximize efficiency. Nowadays, the Chinese happen to be good at producing low-cost manufactured goods. Meanwhile, the U.S. is working at near a capacity. Artificially reducing competition makes for less efficient production, leading to higher costs. Suddenly imposing barriers will cause bottlenecks in supply chains, leading to shortages and disruptions.

Mac45: The EU is a voluntary conglomeration of independent nations. These nations have great latitude in how they conduct their affairs

Contrary to Trump’s understanding, you can’t enter a bilateral trade deal with Germany or France. You have to deal with the E.U.

Mac45: The EU would collapse before the US does, in any wide spread trade embargo.

No one wins in a trade war. Bullying other countries, your own customers, will only weaken the long-term ties between formerly friendly countries. Your solution seems to be to force the E.U. to collapse causing widespread economic damage to the global economy.

tom_swift: Nobody’s demanding that it be easy; the only requirement is that it be effective.

Not sure if most of the American public shares your lack of concern for the ramifications of a trade war. There are already serious rumblings due to the China tariffs. Starting a second trade war would be extremely deleterious to U.S. interests.

The E.U. is one of the most powerful trading blocs in the global market. Members are mostly democratic, open societies, and have built long-term relationships based on trust with the U.S. Eroding these relationships will only weaken the U.S., and the cause of democratic, open societies everywhere.

You are 100% correct that nobody wins a trade war, which is why it would be foolish of the Europeans to start one. But the US did not enter any agreement; Mr 0bama did, but he had no authority to commit the US to it. He kept his end of his private bargain; Mr Trump is not a party to it, and has no reason to respect it.

However Trump can easily undercut any European resistance by reimposing the UN sanctions, which the EU’s governments and courts regard as binding international law.

Milhouse: You are 100% correct that nobody wins a trade war, which is why it would be foolish of the Europeans to start one.

The U.S. is the one threatening sanctions.

Milhouse: But the US did not enter any agreement; Mr 0bama did, but he had no authority to commit the US to it.

Sure. The current president can legally repudiate previous agreements. Gee whiz. Even treaties ratified by the Senate have an exit clause. However, doing so undercuts the current president’s own ability to enter negotiations. Why should anyone trust what the president says when crafting a new agreement?

Putin has outlasted many U.S. presidents. You should be able to see the implications.

When one of my children ws pitching a tantrum, on the floor, kicking their feet (abot 5), I told them they needed to bang their head on the floor, that way we would know they meant it. The child said, but daddy, that would hurt, and that was the end of the fit. I have always been good at turning virtually everything which happens with children into learning opportunities. The older I get, the more i enjoy children, even tweens and teens. That is the only irrational thing I do in life 🙂

The reality is that Trump has committed a major foreign policy blunder. If Juncker succeeds in amending the EU legislation, Trump’s new and renewed sanctions against Iran will be a dead letter.

In their Sochi meeting, Merkel and Putin also agreed that the Nord Stream pipeline would be completed and that the Minsk accords were the only way to peace in Ukraine. That’s two more defeats for the US.

People talking about throwing France or Germany or Turkey out of NATO are strategically and historically stupid. A German-Russian or Turkish-Russian alliance, or both, would drive the US out of Europe and the Middle East. Supporters of Israel, like myself, would have to stand by while Israel’s continued existence was put in doubt.

The proposed legislation will in no way affect US sanctions against EU based companies doing business with Iran. EU legislation has no authority on US actions. It is all designed to allow EU based companies to whine to the US that they have no choice but to deal with Iran, if the legislation is passed. But, the US does not have to allow any company which does business with Iran to do business in the US, or with US interests.

Also, US withdrawal from NATO would not harm US interests, at this point. It would simply return the level of US involvement in Europe to what it was right after WWI, when German and Russia enter into a non-aggression pact which saw Russia allowing Germany to use Russian territory to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles and which led to the invasion of Poland by both countries in 1939. Germany is well on the way to conquering Europe yet again, through the EU. As we may end up fighting them again, being outside NATO might be a good place to be.

Also, an alliance between Russian and either Turkey or Germany would not throw the US out of the Middle East. We’re pretty much out of the Middle east now, thanks to the Obama Administration. Any such alliance would only drive Israel and most of the Arab Gulf States and Egypt closer to the US. As to the US being out of Europe, that would not be such a bad thing. It means that we wouldn’t have to bomb our own troops when we have to fight caliphate EU.

One thing that has dominated the profiles of European countries is that are self serving and greedy. We caught Germany selling restricted products to Iran long ago and the rest of the spineless nations now want the gravy to continue with no concern for the long term consequences. They have been babied and protected by the US since WWII and they just cannot seem to stand on their own feet. I remember seeing the prisoner of war camp during the Bosnia war and to think they would allow a repeat of that kind of horror shows that no one nation has the balls to stand up for what’s right. They are like the traders of old who had no conscience and would sell anything to anybody.

This is entirely Trump’s fault; he can prevent it any time he likes, simply by triggering the snap-back clause and bringing all the UN sanctions back into effect. Nobody can stop him; the clause was deliberately written to give the US the power to do just this whenever it likes. If Trump isn’t doing it it’s because he doesn’t like.

Milhouse: Nobody can stop him; the clause was deliberately written to give the US the power to do just this whenever it likes.

That is not correct. The snap-back provision requires a claim that a party is not living up to its obligations under the agreement, and that a good faith effort has been made to resolve the dispute. None of that applies.

Announcement

Support this Blog

One Time Donation

(Any Amount)

Monthly Donation

LIN_SeventhWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!